🚀 go-pugleaf

cmt@cyberus.ca (Chung Ming Tam) wrote:

>
>Ian Angus has posted a good summary of the argument at 
>	<http://www.angustel.ca/isp-bell.html> 

Thank you.  


>1 - Bell�s rate increases increase both Centrex III lines as well as normal 
>business lines.  I like to know the tariff rates for normal business lines 
>including provisions concerning computer use.  

True. There is an intermediate rate for a "Business Line."  The price varies by 
location ... in Toronto they are about $45/month. As I see it, Business Lines 
attached to multi-port computers would be charged the ISAL rate, if the Tariff is 
accepted as it stands.

>2 - Conspiracy - maybe too strong a word but the bottom line concerns free 
>competitive market.  Bell Canada is right now controlling the infrastructure. 
> Their wholly owned but �independent� subsidiary Worldlinx already have some 
>short term commitment of Bell Canada resources.  They do not have the same 
>time or resource constraints as another independent business.  This is 
>especially true if the increase operating cost is paid back to the parent 
>company.  (i.e. if you are paying rent to your mother, have you really lose 
>money ???)

I think the relationship is considerably more complex than a mother-child 
relationship. This is probably one of those areas where we are doomed to disagree!

>4 - But Bell has singled out the ISPs - where are the other cost increases in 
>other sectors of the high tech. industry.   

I've heard this argument from several other sources. The problem is, that it is 
based on the *assumption* that: (a)Others are paying non-ISAL rates for similar 
connections; and, (b) That Bell isn't changing their bills, too. Neither has been 
shown to be true. If there were even ONE case that could be proven (not just 
asserted) then the case cxould be made. But most of the examples which are tossed 
about (Compuserve, for example) are using very different configurations and 
technology, so this problem doesn't affect them.

My point is, that it is important to argue the case based on clear, correct, and 
provable evidence ... not on unsupported accusations.